New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-07
JAMES R.KEENE'S LARD DEAL
WHY AN ACcoUN TING IS DEMANDED.
DID KEENE "TIE UP" ANY LARD This TESTIMONY
AROIlT Tile TRANSACTION.

DID KEENE "TIE UP" ANY LARD HIS TESTIMONY
ABOUT THE TRANSACTION.
Jomes r. Keenc was examined witness yester-
day in the Superior Court Special Term before Justice
Truax in suit in which William ID. Leonard, who was
amounted receiver of all the property OF MT heene ID
supplementary proceedings on July ~, 1850 oeanas
an accounting from Gilmore A. Kent and Aoram fooie.
constituting the firm of Z. A. Kent 20, brokers' On
transactions IN the CORNER" in lard In which they
,oted for him in September. October November and
December 1879. In this suit which Is identical with
A suit pending in the Supreme Court IN which MI.
Keeene ia plaintiff. Henry c. Butcher, Howard Butcher
and Henry z. Darling composing the firm OF Washing
ton Butchers Sons, brokers' are also defendants The
complaint alleges that the Latter together with Mr.
Keene and Darius and Nathan G. Miller, constituting
the firm of ID. & n q. Miller. employed Kent & Co.
to act rs their brokers in buying and selling lZOoOo
tierces OF lard. Mr.. Kecne to be responsible LOT
so 600 tierces Washington Butchers Sons for 10000,
and D. g. n. @. Miller for ,OOO 1t lie alleged thnt
profits OF several hundred thousand dollars accrued
which no accounting has been rendered. III s DC
manded that accounting be mace anu tnas 'po
b,okers nv what Is due to Mr. Keene. The other rms
in the pool having refused to join as plaintiffs In the
suit are made defendants.
The answer insists that full settlement has already
beep made that Keene, with intent TO defraud the
defendans secretly sold out to the pool lard that he
had covenantcd that he would tie up, causing loss
and damage to the defendants and that Keeue trans
terred all his rights to n G. Miller, who theieupon
settled all claims against the brokers, who PAID MN
S62 500 in full OF all demands In the case similar 10
this pendinc in the Supreme Court on motion for
hill Of particuars Kent Co. claimed that the opera
ton was a gambling operation and decision by JUS
t,ce allowing the bill of particulars was set
aside by the General Term on this ground The de-
PENDANTS claim that the operations IN lard were con
Quoted under a written agreement, upon hich this
action of the General Term was based; but Mr. keene
insists that the written agreement was never consu
mated apd that the transactions were conducted under
a verbal agreement into which the element OF gamohng
IL, fad
nv III s Bennett and the defendants by l.. A. Gould
Mr. Keene when called "a the first witness IN the case
took his seat looking as conented ana happy as II ne
were still tbs owner millions. He is decidedly
handsome man. The lower portion OF his expressive
face is conce aled by full beard neatly trimmed His
voice is meodIOus and his answers to the questions
asked we're given with great promptness He was
quiet both in demeanor and attire lie testihed that ne
first the written agreement at his once on
August l3, so, in the hands OF n. g. Miller The
witness signed and saw it afterw ard until after
his action against Mr. Kent was begun. He gave it to
Mr. Miller for the purpose OF getting the signatures OF
the other parties. He made it condition in signing
that all the other parties should sign giving the num-
Der OF tercss of lard that they placed in the ransac
ton Aiterward, meeting Mr. Kent he was told by the
letter that he had not signed the agreement because
his la wycrs had informed him that the document was
sion il. Mr. Kent said that if they went on in any
other way he would like to act a. their broker. lie
acted broker and the witness deposited s
portion of the lard bought
o-Now. Mr. Keene did you ever tie up any lardi rob
ohaSe they to for that Deposit A.
a Either $25 OOO or 600 was repaid me ON
my demand besides small check Tor 500 or 500
Cross-ex ,mined. the witness SAID his books would
show the amounts received back james ). Wells his
b,okkeeper ade the entries He had received state
ments OF transactions from Kent g. Co. Tue usual
course to destroy notices OF purchase or sale OF
lard IL was customary in such notices 10 give the
names of the persons TO whom lard was sold or from
whom il was purchased.
Q-Do you recoiect giving Kent Co an order to
' S 81 i S .' wSis Al thHE not
TO.
The witness SAID that in January, 1850, after the
lard transaction was closed, he received statement
from Kent & Co.
Odd you bind Yourself TO hold withdraw from the
market any lardi lRuled out
James S. Wells the bookkceper and confident
clerk OF Mr.. Keene, deposod that Kent Co had sent
q check in settlement of the pool accounts TO Mr..
Keene which the latter accepted under protest assert
ing that it insufficient. Either the senior member
or representative OF the firm had told the witness to
take the check and credit il against final settlement
which could be lett open for the time being Aierwdrd
q check for a small amount was received